[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.1.10.0911011623070.55174@caridad.local>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:35:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "Ryan C. Gordon" <icculus@...ulus.org>
To: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FatELF patches...
> It's not the size of the kernel patch I'm worried about. What worries
> me is the disk space needed when *all* my executables and libraries
> are suddenly 3, 4, or 5 times the size they need to be.
Then don't make FatELF files with 5 binaries in it. Or don't make FatELF
files at all.
I glued two full Ubuntu installs together as a proof of concept, but I
think if Ubuntu did this as a distribution-wide policy, then people would
probably choose a different distribution.
Then again, I hope Ubuntu uses FatELF on a handful of binaries, and
removes the /lib64 and /lib32 directories.
> There is also the issue of speed to launch these things. It *has* to
> be slower than executing a native file directly.
In that there will be one extra read of 128 bytes, yes, but I'm not sure
that's a measurable performance hit. For regular ELF files, the overhead
is approximately one extra branch instruction. Considering that most files
won't be FatELF, that seems like an acceptable cost.
> It's far too easy to use computers already. That's the reason for the
> spam problem.
Clearly that's going to remain as a philosophical difference between us,
so I won't waste your time trying to dissuade you.
--ryan.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists